As the "fiscal cliff" looms... and the country anxiously awaits for Washington, D.C. to actually play nice in the sand box... President Obama issues an Executive Order. Not to help the nation... Not to help the states... but to help the very people who got us into this financial mess. He gave them ALL a raise. How thoughtful.

Although the numbers may not seem like a huge increase, check out the note below in what it will cost us all for the pay raise over the next 10 years.

If it was a "nominal" increase... why do it at all during one of the toughest financial times our country has ever faced?

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:

"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."

Jeryl Bier points to an example of the pay increase for average government executives:

"Not much of an increase, but an increase all the same," Bier notes.

And the timing isn't great either: Just as President Obama and Congress try to avert going over the "fiscal cliff," he doles out pay increases to federal workers.

UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."

greeney2 wrote:Any pay increase is a travesty! That said, they are all drastically underpaid compared to any CEO.

I, AMBASSADOR OF KOLOB STATE AND I MEAN IT, as long as the federal government has "deficits" I hereby "strongly encourage" MR PRESIDENT OBAMA not only to freeze but to cut, TOP PAYING OFFICIALS down by half meaning I am encouraging him to "sequester" all salaries above $100,000 per year, meaning all federal employees making more than $100,000 per year will only make half of what they are making now, until and I do make this conditional, the NATIONAL DEBT IS COMPLETELY PAID OFF, now folks how long will it take before all the debt is "paid off" with that kind of incentive, meaning they do not get their full salary, until they make the cuts necessary to bring the budget into "control" and only spend money on "useful items" instead of "support people on welfare" that have been indicted for "drug dealing or drug use" and are on "disability" for drug use and and they do "nothing to rehabilitate" these people even though many of them are "long since recovered" and the only reason they keep them on welfare is because they simply cannot discern between a man who is "capable of working" and those who are not capable of working, why does he not put people on a temporary work duty as a "government employee", to assist congress in putting the budget process under control using "former drug addicts" would be ideal, for most of them would rather "cut fellow druggies" off, than give them money for the "critic" is always hardest on "other critics" but "mandatory testing for drugs" is not the answer since that is unconstitutional why don't we just ask them a simple question:

HAVE YOU EVER USED DRUGS FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES OR ARE YOU CURRENTLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANY "hallucinogenic substances" that could effectively cloud your judgment or keep you from operating safely at a job site?

MOST PEOPLE WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION HONESTLY AND THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT WOULD SOONER OR LATER BE CAUGHT DOING IT, thereby allowing us to "cut off their funding", clearly this would go a long way to "get our nation off of drugs" and it would also "keep people from profiting from drugs" as much if they are indeed drug dealers, for most of those profit from the "LOW LIFES" and I will call them that who are "too lazy to work" and don't really care that they put US all into financial bondage to evil kings who steal our money as a result!

As far as being "underpaid" as a CEO, the US government is indeed a "corporation" but it is in "public service" and does not "generate a profit" but rather is "a non profit corporation" meaning our "servants right now are unprofitable servants" for they "do not profit" and instead get us into "unreasonable and unnecessary debt" therefore their "salaries" must be cut especially their top salaries otherwise they will "NEVER REFORM" otherwise!

Contact Us.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.